Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you consider that among single people between 18-34, there is a tremendous surplus of single men relative to single women, then yes, every woman dying skews the dating pool even worse than it already is.
If you consider that among single people between 18-34, there is a tremendous surplus of single men relative to single women, then yes, every woman dying skews the dating pool even worse than it already is.
^^^That is only true if the women dying are also in the 18-34 age bracket. The older age brackets have surpluses of excess women. The OP never specified the age of the women that would hypothetically be dying.
For all of human history we have had a "we must always defend and protect the women!" attitude and philosophy.. Which makes sense as they have been the ones ton give life, but clearly things are far different today, with over 7 billion humans we most certainly aren't close to going extinct. According to Matthew White’s estimate on the page Worldwide Statistics of Casualties, Massacres, Disasters and Atrocities., a total of about 123 million men died in all wars of the 20th Century. Hypothetically speaking, say the exact same number of women just dropped dead tomorrow as all the number of men who have died in war in the 20th century, while obviously it would be extremely sad and tragic. do you think 123 million women instantly dropping dead would be as inherently worse than the same number of men instantly dropping dead?
I was raised to hold that men protect women and children. I don't relish the thought of being in combat with women. I think I would be distracted. But that's just me and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
I was raised to hold that men protect women and children. I don't relish the thought of being in combat with women. I think I would be distracted. But that's just me and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
Tammy Duckworth, a retired ARNG lieutenant colonel, wrote a few days back:
Quote:
When I was bleeding to death in my Black Hawk helicopter on that dusty field in Iraq, I didn't care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender, black, white, male or female. All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind.
I have to say, if my arse were on the line, I wouldn't be that choosy either.
Yes. You only need a few men to keep the race alive. The rest are expendable. We need lots of women though. Besides our society no longer needs or wants masculine traits in people. That makes men even more expendable.
Read the history of Paraguay. They chose their wars badly, and lost virtually every male resident of potential potency. When the smoke cleared, the women were impregnated by happy Argentine crewmen on the first trading vessels that came up the post-war river, and it is presumed that they were the ancestors of every living Paraguayan.
Nope. A person is a person. Women are of no more worth than a man nor vice versa. I find the notion completely ridiculous in fact, and this topic is the first time I've ever even heard of such a thing. How do people think this stuff up?!
I've never been one for 'Women First' slogan. My approach is - toss a coin if you canny decide.
Mind you, I gave the same answer to the utilitarian trolley problem. Unless, you're willing to give me more data, I'm gonna say 'toss the coin' and let the one poor bugger have a chance.
And let's not forget "there are no feminists in a house fire"....Bill Burr.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.